C310 Vs B58

[Corvallis]

Which one is better? How much to charter one in the top end?

[L0u0k0e]

C310, because it looks better.

[Volumex]

Getting passengers into the barn doors of a B58 is a darn sight easier than the 310.

[Tankengine]

310 has nacelle lockers and less W&B problems.
Same speed/load.
Pretty well personal preference, hire either one!:ok:

[BleedingAir]

I've been told that the C310 is a little better for range/payload (when VG equipped), but I've never flown a Baron so cannot really confirm that.

If by charter you mean you'd like to charter one as a passenger, then I'd agree there's little to no difference. Same number of pax seats, practically same speed depending on props/engines/airframe of the particular aeroplane, and around the same cost.

[The Green Goblin]

The baron is the rolls royce, the 310 a work horse.

I'd rather fly the baron, it's hard to beat in the small twin market.

I'd rather operate a 310 as its cheaper, and gets the job done.

[Wally Mk2]

Bit like Holden V Ford, both do the same task at the end of the day. Same donks (Similar) same seat No's. I've flown & worked on both, the Baron is built like a tank, the Cessna feels plastic & just doesn't seem to have the same quality about it.
Baron has odd engine management controls, not conventional (accept very late models) so I always found from a pilots POV awkward, personal choice there.
Access wise the Baron beats the Cessna hands down.

Never did like the tip tanks being the main tanks on the Cessna with the continuous operating fuel pumps sharing the same circuit breakers as the Ldg Light motors if I recall.Bit of an odd fuel management system to I think. 1hr out of the mains (Tips) b4 you could use the wing tanks due return fuel???....anyone?
That may not be entirely correct as it has been many years since I flew them so perhaps someone in the know could enlighten me on that.
I used to fly the first Q model 310 that had no Omni vision window, flew straight & fast, an Ex Hazo's job.
'Corv' as far as yr original Q I can't help but it did give me a chance to go back & reminisce thanks:-)

Wmk2

[crwkunt roll]

Never flew a 310 but many B58 hours and every one of them was great. It's really beautiful to fly.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

For passenger comfort, and ease of entry / exit, its hard to beat the Be-58 with the 'Club Seating' arrangement, and its also easier for the 'l'il ole fat pilot's of today' as well....

We ain't as 'athletic' as we used to be....and to crawl into the Baron is easy....

Cheers:ok:

[Jamair]

Got a coupla hundred in both; really is a personal preference thing. The Baron I found to be simpler fuel system and easier for pax to get into and out of, plus it handled really sweet and the engines (although the same model IO520) seemed a lot smoother. Both have good nose lockers. The 310 was slightly more stable in turbulence but a bugger to load, although the wing lockers were useful. Wally, the fuel system was an interesting setup. The mains were the tips, the Auxes inboard and some also had slipper tanks in the nacelles. The fuel return always went to the tips, so you had to use some out of the tips before switching to auxes, otherwise the returns from the engines would refill the tips and then overflow (see the ATSB report from the Newman WA Polair crash). Fuel from the nacelles was sometimes a problem, IIRC it was pumped by a motive unit so if the engine failed on that side, no fuel could be pumped out of that nacelle tank for x-feed. Skytrans (the old, real one) had a good idea: the engineers developed a new system with an STC that had electric pumps in the auxes. You flew on the mains, when they got about half down you flipped a switch and the pumps transferred fuel from auxes into mains. VH-ARN had that I think.

Either aeroplane is a nice ride and a good IF platform.

I doubt you would be chartering either for less than $750/hr.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The 55 had even worse CG issues. Did a charter once with 4 miners. Had to load 136kg (thereabouts) of cinder blocks in the nose just to keep it balanced. Left 1 hr range worth of fuel.:rolleyes:

[anothertwit]

Jamair,
All correct for the 310 except for the engine failure bit, it is the aux's you can't x feed with an engine out. nacelles are flip the switch job and transfer into the mains (tips). skytrans's mod was a good bit of practical engineering and made things safer for us dumb pilots.:}

I've always found the extra weight right out on the tips of the 310 make it a little unstable in roll, especially at lower speeds.

[Wally Mk2]

Tnxs 'Jamair' 4 the in-depth update :)I do recall the fuel going overboard if there was insufficient room in the tip tanks for the return of same.
'Jamair' I found the donks on the Cessna where smoother at low eng RPM as the Baron felt like they had hotted up high lift cams in their engines much like a hotted up V8 car, lumpy cam engines as we used to call our high performance car engines,well if ya can call an old FC Holden grey motor sporting twin Stromberg downdraft carbies "hotted up":ok::-)
The 310 was a good stepping stone onto the 400 series Cessnas I reckon & the old Baron was a good stepping stone to the Qeenies or King's.

Ah the good 'ole days.....damn where did they go:-(

I'd hate to imagine what the chtr rate is these days for such machines.

Wmk2

[Jamair]

Yeah 'twit', knew it was one or t'other........

Skytrans also had a STOL 310 which was a novel handling package. I liked it but some guys had trouble doing decent landings.

The Baron does have that lumpy engine feel but once you open the taps it was smoooooth.

I only had single barrel strom on the 138 EK Wal, but I made up for it by dumping the oil bath air cleaner for a paper element thing from the car shop that you could hear the intake noise from at 300 yards....:}

The older you get, the better you were:ok:

[Ixixly]

Flown the C310R, one with VG Kit and Aircon and was an absolute pleasure. No problems with loadings for me, the nose locker made things pretty easy as it was pretty roomy and the wing lockers were good as well (No Nacelle Tanks in this one). Always did worry me about the strain on the wings with full main tanks with a bit of turbulence!!! And the Aux Tank thing with the waiting for an hour so you didn't dump your fuel overboard was a little odd.

Passenger loading sure looks easier with that rear door and the club config looks nice with the Baron, but I never had any real issues with loading people on or off though.

Really think it depends on the individual Aircraft and what you really want out of it.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Always did worry me about the strain on the wings with full main tanks with a bit of turbulence!!!

Why would this be of any concern at all?:confused:
The main tank placement actually relieves the loads placed on the spar joints at the centre of the aircraft, increasing the zero fuel loading ability and distributing the load more evenly across the span.:8

Several reported reasons (besides the one I just mentioned) as to why the mains were located here include stability about the londitudinal axis and in turns (from the C310G, the tips took on a more aerodynamic shape - "stabila-tips") and crash survival (the tips supposedly separate in the event of a ground impact - this occurred to the second prototype. The tips broke away from the wings and it didn't burn after impact.)

Never could think of a good reason for that fcuked up fuel system, though. Byproduct of adding the aux tanks after the first couple of models?

[Ixixly]

Huh, never thought about it that way before MakeItHappenCaptain, just always made me a little nervous going through turbulence and watching the aircraft try to flap its wings...

[The Green Goblin]

Thats how the C310 rolls airborne, it flaps its wings :cool::cool:

And the '58 wags its tail :E

[tail wheel]

Lots of options.

If you need double the Cessna 310, how about the Cessna 620?

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/Cessna620.jpg

Or if you need Cessna 310 capacity but double the speed, how about the Cessna 407?

http://www.machdiamonds.com/cessna407.jpg

Lots of options with Cessnas!! :D

[BleedingAir]

Was told by a few people early in my C310 flying that the tip tanks were a contributing factor to the type being a difficult aeroplane to land smoothly or softly. Possibly an OWT, or complete rubbish... but it does remain the most elusive type I've flown when it comes to greasers. The C404 was the other end of the scale.

[BobM2]

Here's the story of the original 310 development & why the tip tanks were thought a great safety feature. Written by one of the engineers on the program:

Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal (http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/10/defining-the-cessna-310/)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Fantastic, Bob!
Thanks.:ok:

Other commom modifications (besides VG kits) were the Robertson STOL kit, which replaced the split flaps with slotted fowler flaps.
Jack Riley also modified a couple in the US with counter rotating TIO-540 Lycomings (350 bhp and called the Turbostream), but don't think any made it out here. Burlair operates a beautiful turbo converted R model. Pretty sure he's spent over half a mil. Show quality.:D

[kimwestt]

The Barons have a very high nose att when landing, lots of drivers had truble keeping the nw high enuf.
Yep, the Baron is the RR of light twins.
The 310 has a lot more room in the cockpit, at least you can take a deep breath with two largish people in the front.
As everyone says, bout the same for range, fbo, TAS, etc,etc. I've 1000 plus in each, so my choices are::ok:the Baron for stability n handling, the 310 for room, esp the wing lockers.

[PLovett]

Have flown both (including B55 and earlier C310 models) and have to agree with pretty much all of the above comments. :ok:

My preference is for the Baron (especially the B55D & E :D) but it was my initial multi-engine and still enjoy that kick in the back it gives you when you put the throttles up. :}

The C310 with VG does give you a bit more load (VG on the Baron only gives you better Vs and VMCA - not load) but the downside of the C310 is that bleedin' awful fuel system. I understand that it caught out a notorious CASA FOI on a trip from Cairns to the Torres Strait once. :rolleyes: The other drawback with the C310 is loading anyone who is not really mobile. The climb up the steps can be an ordeal for some. :ouch:

[displaced gangster]

C310R still is my favorite piston twin.
The fuel system, once you understood it's quirks is fine, the auxiliary tanks (bladders) use the engine driven pumps to supply fuel to the engine fuel control unit and are prone to vapourisation (I recall a pilot getting sacked for scaring passengers by selecting the auxiliary tanks simultaneously at TOPC, both engines surged for quite awhile due to vapourisation) A better technique is to allow the engine and fuel temperatures to stabilise, then select the auxiliary tanks one at a time, monitoring the fuel flow. If the fuel flow fluctuated, re selecting the mains with their electric pumps supporting the engine driven pumps restored the pressure/flow.

After landing, shutting down the engines for around 20 minutes resulted in the injector lines becoming heat soaked and becoming cantankerous to start.

The C310R has more room in the front (two big blokes sitting in the front seats had quite a bit more room between their shoulders than the Baron. The B58 had better access into the rear seats.

LAME's are adamant the C310 is easier to maintain (better access panel design)

Would love to have one for myself, however the fuel burn (115lts/hr) for a six seat twin would be hard to justify.:cool

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

After landing, shutting down the engines for around 20 minutes resulted in the injector lines becoming heat soaked and becoming cantankerous to start.

That's the one thing I like about Continentals. If you run the fuel pumps with the throttle closed and the mixtures at ICO, it actually cycles fuel through the lines, making them much easier to hot start than Lycs. Give them about 20-30 seconds before cranking.:ok:

The problem (common to both makes) then becomes starters and cabling having incresed resistance because of the abmient heat.

[Flying Bear]

Probably one aspect that many here are interested in, and on a slightly different tack (but still within the scope of this thread) is which of the two would be a better endorsement to have (given the choice of one, but not the other) in terms of securing employment in that first multi-engine job?

To that end, you'll find no real distinct dominance of one type over the other in GA charter companies, although there are probably more Barons than 310s about. Some companies operate one type exclusively, some companies operate both types. Either is a capable light charter twin, certainly when compared to other machines such as Senecas, Partenavias, etc. My thoughts are that a C310/340 endorsement is as valuable as a Baron/Travelair endorsement when seeking work - they serve to show some level of experience with a "useful" GA airplane, but neither is a deal breaker if not held by a prospective pilot...

From a technical standpoint and from my experience, the 310's superior ground clearance is a solid benefit on unsealed airfields, two-bladed Barons in particular are at risk on these. Also, my opinion is that the 310 has a nicer "ride" for passengers - the Baron feels worse in rough air and with it's lower cabin roof, I have sconed my noggin too many times in a Baron on turbulent days to be a massive fan.

The Baron wins with the utility door and operating simplicity of the fuel system (but the engineers hate the bladder fuel cells...), however a big issue with the Baron is that you never positively know how much fuel is on board unless it is full, or empty - the accuracy of the fuel gauging system is a nightmare. The 310 has vastly more accurate fuel quantity sensing, but requires more solid SA in order to manage the fuel system (not altogether a bad thing, as it does get one versed in fuel system management rather than the "fire and forget" selections on the Beech). Never seen a 310 without evidence of the "fuel dump" from the main tanks...

The new model Barons are a beautiful thing with their ergonomics and avionics and it is hard to beat the solid feel of a Beechcraft (but don't you just hate removing the cowls on them?).

So, they are good in their own different ways - it's a bit like a Ford vs Holden thing...

[rutan around]

Hey Captain,
I reckon if you use WOT it works better. Recirculates a bigger volume of cool fuel quickly.:D
Cheers RA

[Jamair]

Standard procedure on all the fuel injected engines for hot starts was:
Batt power on
mixtures to ICO (throttles didn't matter)
fuel pumps ON and remain on for a good few minutes while you do
passenger brief, door checks, seatbelts etc then
fuel pumps OFF
Lycos - lean start ie ICO, throttle cracked open 1/2 inch-ish crank it till it fires then mix smoothly to rich
Contis - rich start ie throttle 1/2 inch-ish, mix full rich, crank it.

Never failed.

Nothing alarms pax more than a pilot who can't start the bloody aeroplane.

Thread drift over

PS I knew a pilot who landed a C421 straight ahead after an EFATO at Roma (bloody good call too) and he related that his most lasting memory of the event was the tip tanks separating and spinning off on their own path away from the aeroplane, avgas spraying everywhere. Everyone got out, walked back to the apron and got in another aircraft and on their way.

[megle2]

Jam - Bat/Pumps on and go do the other chores? Then hop back in and start
Can't see that getting into the checklists and an approval tick by any CP/casa

[BobM2]

Jam - Bat/Pumps on and go do the other chores? Then hop back in and start
Can't see that getting into the checklists and an approval tick by any CP/casa
That's not what he said. He's sitting in the seat with boost pumps running while briefing paxs, etc. Meanwhile the boost pumps are circulating cool fuel from the tanks through the injector lines to the flow dividers & back through the return lines to the tanks. This purges vapor from the lines. It works!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sorry in advance if I've misunderstood the intention of your post, Jamair, but my point was that Contis recirculate the fuel continually, Lycs just pressurise the heated stuff already in the lines.

Any engineering types want to confirm/explain, please?

[PLovett]

'Tis those return lines that bedevil the C310 by only going to the mains.On anything other than the b@stard child of a Cessna fuel system they go back to all tanks.

With the mixture in ICO fuel goes from the tanks to the fuel metering system only and is then returned to the tanks. So by running the pumps you will get cold fuel from the tanks in the lines up to the fuel metering unit. Once done a brief run of the aux boost pumps will then put cold fuel in the fuel pumps and injector lines making the start so much easier.

With Lycomings there is no such fuel return line so once fuel has vaporised in the lines, pumps and injector lines making the hot start on such things as Chieftains an art form.

In summary, Contis' take more fuel than they need and return the unwanted to the tanks. Lycomings take what they need so no need for the return lines.

[XP-72]

In this day of 'political corectness' I must first state my party choice bias. I am a Cessna person through & through.

Having got that off my chest I have got to say that the 310 is my choice of weapons.

Having flown most of the model numbers - from the B to the R - including the rotton 320 which I could never get a good landing out of!!

Being 6' 4" in the old language I found that I could comfortably sit in the seat & bung my nav bag between the seats.

As for the 'difficult' fuel system - we are supposed to be 'professional' pilots so learning what is really not a difficult set of rules is really a no brainer!!

In & out of dirt strips it is really better than the B58 - as stated earlier by virtue of it's height.

As for the complexity of the landing gear - some 13 seperate adjustments according to my LAME mate made the maintenance a little more demanding - I suppose that's like the fuel system. What that means in practical terms is that a very thorough pre flight is needed on the gear - especially with the older models with the welded struts.

I have done many ferry flights across the Pacific in 310's & found that with my height I could still be relatively supple after getting out of them. Some legs went 16hrs.

As for the B58 - I enjoyed flying them - but not in instrument conditions - not because of any lack of stability - but for the dopey panel set up that always placed the bloody ILS hidden away under the arm that the control wheel was on - for a big bloke that meant some kind of serious uncomfortable body positioning to see it right at a critical time.

Also I never ever felt comfortable in them - always felt confined & could never find a suitable place to put my nav bag.

Gotta say the build quality of the B58 was right up there at the top for that class of aeroplane.

As for pax ingress & exit - bugger them I'm having fun flying the thing!!

BTW as for load carrying capacity - the 310 will always trump the B58 - my record was 48% over gross coming out of Oakland - carrying normal ferry tanks but with all the spray gear from a 188 that was coming with me. In those days rules were not always followed. Even out of Pago Pago with that load the aeroplane worked well.

[Green gorilla]

Have over a thousand hours in each and room in the 310 is a bonus but I loved the light controls on the 58 and 55.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

'Tis those return lines that bedevil the C310 by only going to the mains.On anything other than the b@stard child of a Cessna fuel system they go back to all tanks.

Queenair Straight 65, C402A&B, not C:E

[megle2]

Ok, I have read it again
Still doesn't pass with me

Pilot loads pax, hops in, puts bat/pumps on then briefs paxs from his seat position for a few minutes - does this include the rear paxs including 2 brace positions, emergency exits, rear door opening, belts, vents ect

Maybe he just briefs the front seat pax separately for a few minutes having previously briefed the rest.

I'm being picky but in all the years I flew both types I don't remember starting to be much of an issue

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Doesn't take that long.:rolleyes:

Doesn't really matter if no-one told you about it, you managed to get easy starters (lucky you!), the shutdown times were short enough not to heat soak or long enough for the engine to have cooled sufficiently. Maybe you have the knack for hot starts? That's just the difference between Lycs and Contis and if it helps someone who's not aware, it ain't a trade secret.

If anything, I hope it inspires those driving Contis to have a discussion with their LAMEs about the donks they operate.:ok:

Next topic...Lycoming Density and Differential Pressure controllers and how Continental does it instead.:E:}:8

[hiwaytohell]

Here's the story of the original 310 development & why the tip tanks were thought a great safety feature. Written by one of the engineers on the program:

Defining the Cessna 310 - Air Facts Journal (http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/10/defining-the-cessna-310/)

Many years ago I heard someone at Hazelton's flew a 310 (in the early 1970s), without the tip tanks. The story going around at the time was it was noticeably faster, but a real slug off the ground and in climb.

Maybe some older ex Hazelton guys know the story??

[Towering Q]

The 310R is an awesome machine!

I should also add that I haven't flown a Baron. I've been down the back throwing out rafts/flares during maritime SAR training, but that doesn't count.

The size difference would be my biggest concern. The Baron always seemed too cozy for my liking, and limited in baggage space. The 310R had a massive nose locker, wing lockers and room behind the back seat.

My only gripe with the 310 is the seat position. Although there is plenty of room up front, the seat doesn't seem to wind down low enough. Not ideal for the taller types. I once heard it described as similar to sitting on a bar stool at the kitchen table.:uhoh:

I remember taxiing a 310 to depart a remote Aboriginal community...the nurse started waving frantically from behind the fence. I stopped and shut-down to see what the fuss was all about. She pointed out that the steps were still down after we had shut the doors and started moving!:ok:

[rutan around]

MakeItHappenCaptain
I hate it when I discover I'm wrong and worse still when I put it in print.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif I owe you an apology. You were right. It makes no difference where the throttle is if the mixture is at ICO. When the boost pump is engaged on an injected Continental cool fuel is pumped to the mixture cut off point and returns to the sump tank(or fuel tank-varies on types and models)The throttle only effects fuel flow after the mixture control. I was taught mixture full out throttle full in ,pump for a while-60 to 90 seconds then reverse the positions give a 1 second squirt to clear the injector lines and then conduct a normal start. Worked very well .The full in full out was probably taught so it didn't strain my brain too much. Next time I'll try starting the brain before engaging the keyboard.
Cheers RA

[Capt Fathom]

Hundreds of hours in Cessna and Beechcraft twins!

My personal preference for some of them are..

Based on Charter and RPT Ops.

Queen Air 65
C310
C402C
C402
C402A
C402B
C421C
B58
B55

All fantastic aircraft. Hard to separate them!

[Wally Mk2]

Hey 'capt' interesting you have the Queeny as No 1. Good choice nice big cabin & even looked the part:ok: Noisy buggers though:-) The forerunner to the KingAir, the nicest Beech ever designed I reckon:-)

I did notice however yr grouping in the two airframes in discussion here with cabin class twins, they are as you know not in the same league but yr list is about right anyway:-)

Wmk2

[Corvallis]

Thankyou everyone for such a great amount of response to my question .

Due to the initial cost and payload capabilities (and ofcourse the mechanical condition /History) I have purchased a 310R.

Some jobs that i could get may be freight only. Does anyone have any suggestions/experience regarding freight only ops ? Eg small to medium sized boxes , mail, mining related freight etc.

[kingRB]

RA

I was taught mixture full out throttle full in ,pump for a while-60 to 90 seconds then reverse the positions give a 1 second squirt to clear the injector lines and then conduct a normal start. Worked very well .don't feel too bad, I read the exact same thing here. Since it's from Continental, I figure they have some idea what they are talking about.

http://www.insightavionics.com/pdf%20files/Continental.pdf

Start around page 35 to 36. The whole thing is very much worth a read though.

If you are using the yellow side of the electric boost pump rocker switch in a 200 series Cessna IO520, I think you will find it activates based on throttle position, so a closed throttle wont allow the pump to work in that particular priming situation.

[archangel7]

The obvious thing to me is that the 310 is the sleekest thing in GA. But you cannot ignore the Baron's huge popularity and esteemed reputation. Like so many things in aviation, choosing between the Baron 58 and 310 is largely subjective. It might also be worth remembering that Barons are worth more or cost more, depending on which way you look at it. A 310 will cost less than an equivalent Baron of the same vintage. The Baron's advantages are clear; rear doors, shorter runway requirement, cabin layout, magnificent handling, easier resale and on post-1984 versions; higher speed. The 310R is kinder when it comes to paying for maintenance, the cabin is larger and less noisier than the Baron's, it has greater range/payload flexibility, more luggage space and year-model for year-model, has the seductive advantage, albeit marginally, of being faster.

[Dora-9]

I'm sorry, but why are post-1984 Barons faster? The fastest Barons are the C55/D55/E55's (slimmer rear fuselage, I'm not sure how this affects drag but the wing is an a subtly further forward position when compared to a 58).

[hiwaytohell]

Comparing a late 70s B58 to a similar year C310R, both have similar speed up to full throttle altitude at similar power settings. Above this height the 310R gets at least 1" to 1 1/2" more manifold pressure due to the ram air effect from the induction system. So above 6,000' or so I found the 310R was a good 10kts quicker than a similar year model 58.

[Volumex]

I'm sorry, but why are post-1984 Barons faster? The fastest Barons are the C55/D55/E55's (slimmer rear fuselage, I'm not sure how this affects drag but the wing is an a subtly further forward position when compared to a 58).
The fastest Baron is the 56TC.

[Dora-9]

You're absolutely right, I'd forgotten about the 56.

In 1984 the 58 went from IO-520's (285 hp) to IO-550's (300 hp), but they are still slower than the C55/D55/E55 and 56!

[BEACH KING]

The fastest Baron is the 56TC.

I'll never forget the 56TC that was here for a week doing some photography (fl140?) many years ago.

The climb rate and short ground roll was astonishing.

[Jabawocky]

You klnow the drill Beachie....Too much horsepower is almost enough! :ok:

[BEACH KING]

Yeah Jabba, I think it had a couple of Duke engines in it (Lyc TIO540's?) 380hp? a side.
The right configuration though....BIG engines & little superbly built aircraft:O

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Photos: Beech 56TC Turbo Baron Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Airsearch-Mapping/Beech-56TC-Turbo/0147343/L/&sid=4f58c2514e0eac72f79a879e85324504)

Check the size of those donks! These kept up with C-90 Kingairs. TIO-540-E1B4 engines.
They were the test bed to gain expeience operating the Duke engines (TIO-541-E1A4) on a E55 airframe.
OMFG.:E:ok:

[PLovett]

So, no aft CoG probs with that one then. :eek:

[BEACH KING]

MakeItHappenCaptn
Well I'll beef hooked.
That is the actual aircraft I was talking about!
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/4/3/0147343.jpg

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And that exact airframe (fuselage, no wings) is now in the back of the engineer training hanger (#3?) behind the Nomad.

[iPahlot]

Not to detract from the topic too much, but curious as to why the Seneca (II and above) haven't been able to get the same sort of foothold in the charter market?

The speeds, payload and cabin size seems to rival that of the Baron +/- and acquisition cost is quite low.

It doesn't handle like a Baron for sure, but then again the 310 doesn't either.

[Capt Fathom]

It's been a while, but I recall the Senecas had a limiting ZFW, which made it only a 5 seater in practical terms.